[ioddly]

> Granted few or none of these things may result if we're talking about trash fiction, which isn't better than any other time-waster one may choose (TV, say—though both are fine if one's goal is simply entertainment).

I think there's an argument for reading as entertainment, regardless of quality, as a form of non-productive entertainment that is less harmful than other forms of entertainment. I've taken to switching off my devices at night and just reading books (fiction and non-fiction) before bed.

I would say my attention span has benefited greatly from this, as has my sleep (from not staring into blue lights late into the night).

Of course reading fiction isn't the only activity that this could apply to. Just the one we happen to be talking about.

[ashark]

> I think there's an argument for reading as entertainment, regardless of quality, as a form of non-productive entertainment that is less harmful than other forms of entertainment. I've taken to switching off my devices at night and just reading books (fiction and non-fiction) before bed.

That's a good point. I was over-broad in my post—the form by which one experiences otherwise low-nutrient entertainment can have its own benefits. Reading even so-so fiction's not the same as watching so-so TV or compulsively refreshing online news aggregators, for example.

[bostonvaulter2]

Just curious, how long is your average nightly reading period? I'm thinking of taking up a similar habit but not sure how long to allot. Also I'm a little worried about going over-time, especially when reading fiction!

[ioddly]

Probably about a half hour minimum, sometimes going for hours, depends on when I turn the computer off. I have a pretty flexible waking time as I work remotely but I've never totally lost track of time doing it.

[namarie]

> (from not staring into blue lights late into the night) f.lux solves this problem.